If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Modern Intel Gallium3D Driver Still Being Toyed With

05-18-2013, 08:00 AM

Phoronix: Modern Intel Gallium3D Driver Still Being Toyed With

While it's not the default Linux graphics driver for Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge hardware, the "ilo" independently-developed Gallium3D driver for modern Intel graphics hardware continues to be developed...

Comment

Where is the comments about missing features and poor performance and the insistence that only the classic driver be used?

Oh never mind I get it. Bias only works one way.

And how come We have never seen an Intel APU vs AMD APU comparison? Somehow I doubt that will ever happen on this site. Oh sure there have been some that included benchmarks of both, but not t a single one of them included graphics benches. Which is arguably the most important part of an APU. Why the hell else would you buy an APU?

Either way. I don't care if you take a negative bias towards everything or if you take a positive bias towards everything. Just pick a damn side and be fair to that side.

Comment

Where is the comments about missing features and poor performance and the insistence that only the classic driver be used?

Oh never mind I get it. Bias only works one way.

And how come We have never seen an Intel APU vs AMD APU comparison? Somehow I doubt that will ever happen on this site. Oh sure there have been some that included benchmarks of both, but not t a single one of them included graphics benches. Which is arguably the most important part of an APU. Why the hell else would you buy an APU?

Either way. I don't care if you take a negative bias towards everything or if you take a positive bias towards everything. Just pick a damn side and be fair to that side.

There are benchmarks that show that Intel HD4000 is as fast as an Radeon 6500-600 Apu with 500Gflops and Catalyst. Any way we have not a reason to test a product (Catalyst) that steal to any Benchmark, reducing precision. I just don't understand how from this: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/gra...k_5.html#sect3 that Unigine shows the truth (gtx580=70% more Flops than HD6970, the same is with HD7000-3.8Tflops vs 6.4Tflops of a GTX680), now are equal.

Comment

Separately, for those curious about the recent prospects of the older i915 Gallium3D driver possibly becoming the default over Intel's i915 classic driver for supporting up through i945 IGPs, there isn't any new information.

Well, there was actually a few commits by that google developer which supposedly increased performance of the i915g driver by like 30+%.

Comment

Intel ended up bringing OpenGL 2.1 to classic i915 to compete with that older Gallium3D driver

I don't get Intel?s total refusal to support Gallium3D.

I understand that if there is a fine working classic driver for older hardware, the GPU vendor would not want to spend money on a Gallium port (AMD did that as well). But considering that i915g exists already and reportedly is better than the classic driver, to then spend the resources on the classic driver to achieve partial feature parity with the Gallium driver makes no economic sense from my POV. Shouldn't Intel?s priority be to make their hardware customers as satisfied as possible to make them want to buy Intel products as well?

Anybody got a clue why Intel insists on not touching Gallium ? not even for new drivers?